Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. Corcoran

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


November 24, 2008

DUDLEY HARRIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUPT. CORCORAN; MAHER, DEPUTY SUPT. OF SEC.; MR. ROCKER, CAPTAIN; LT. MAUHIR; LT. SIGNOR; EMERSON, SERGEANT; K. STEVENSON, F.O.I.L. OFFICER; MR. BUTLER, CORP, MR. PETERS, DENOTO, MR. MOORE, LUZIANI, AND MR. BROWN, EACH CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS; R. CHAPIN, CAPTAIN, SGT. APPLEBY, T. NAPOLI, GRIEVANCE SUPERVISOR, B. RAWLEIGH, FACILITY MAINTENANCE, DAVID BABIARZ, FACILITY PAROLE OFFICER, HOLLENBECK, CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR, JOHN BLAKE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, EACH OF CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JAMES LOVELACE, AND SENIOR INVESTIGATOR; C. RAMSAY, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, CAYUGA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David N. Hurd United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Plaintiff, Dudley Harris, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Report-Recommendation dated October 17, 2008, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Claims # 7, 11-12, and 17 be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable constitutional claim under § 1983; that defendants Fischer, A. Costillo, Saville, and DOCS be dismissed; and that should the district court adopt the report recommendation, the amended complaint be served on the remaining parties to this action. The plaintiff has filed timely objections to the report-recommendation.

Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Treece, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that

1. Claims No. 7, 11-12, and 17 are DISMISSED;

2. Defendants Fischer, A. Costillo, Saville, and DOCS are DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk is directed to make the necessary changes on the docket to reflect the dismissal of the above defendants; and

3. The Amended Complaint may be served on the remaining parties and the action may go forward.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20081124

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.